Thursday, 11 December 2014

The thing about Elvis
is that any misgivings about him as a man who 'copied' or 'stole' Afro-American
music is that it has to be understood that he came from the dominant culture
who would only accept one who was of them as number one.

There was an aesthetic
aspect as well because there were talented white artists who could not be
promoted in the manner that he was because they did not have the 'looks'.

He definitely adapted a
great degree of his overall style and packaging: singing, moving (apart from
the later karate stuff) and clothing from observing and imbibing the cultural
impulse of black America.

One huge strike against
him was his Southern roots and the whole negativity of the black experience in
that part of the United States under the respective regimes of slave society
and later, ‘Jim Crow’ Apartheid.

There were always all
sorts of rumours about his racial attitudes. “I could never kiss a Mexican (or
black) woman”, “Niggers are only good for shining my shoes” and so on. I don’t
think they were definitively corroborated.

He was however
constricted by the racial mores of the time. His friend Sammy Davis Jr said
Elvis told him that he wished they could both make a movie together but that
his audience base (meaning whites and particularly those from below the
‘Mason-Dixon Line’) would not accept it.

Did this demonstrate a
certain spinelessness and lack of moral courage on his part? Or was he just
being pragmatic?

There are those who
feel that he could and should have done more to break down racial barriers.
Others feel that just the way he expressed his music and his giving credit to
those blacks who had influenced him was enough.

He fell in to self
parody and despite his amazing ‘comeback’ show on TV and a revival of sorts in
Las Vegas, the case can be forcefully made that his best and most essential
work was in the two or three year period that followed the inception of his
career.

He stands accused of
wasting his talent on terrible Hollywood movies, wearing tacky stage attires,
and not attempting to write his own songs and push the boundaries of his
creativity in the age of The Beatles, Bob Dylan and later of the introspective
singer-songwriters.

Many of his fans are
just content that he was what he was regardless. A guy who could sing a many
styles with great aplomb and who paved the way for countless black and white
musicians.

That may be cold
comfort for the militant black school of thought that postulates him as a "straight-up racist" who was “simple
and plain”. His pelvic gyrations; a pale imitation of more ‘robustly’ physical
and sensual movements by a multitude of earlier R & B performers mark him
down for ridicule and even disdain:

“If Elvis is King, who
is James Brown; God?” wrote Amiri Baraka.

But it should not be
forgotten that Elvis took risks by being a pioneer in his adaptation of black
culture. He received huge stick for perpetuating what some of his Southern
brethren were referring to as “degenerate nigger music” and the threat it posed
to the social order by the fact that blacks and whites were digging his music
whether listening to it on the radio or live at (segregated) venues.

He was odd in many
ways. Much has been made of the way in which he conducted his private life. But
this had a lot to do with his living within a kind of fame that few humans
could comprehend. So many people often remember how well mannered and humble he
appeared to be in his interactions.

He may not be ‘The
King’ to all, and the devotion shown to him by many of his fans may appear over
the top and devoid of rationality, but his impact on the course of music
history cannot be denied and should not be denigrated.

Tuesday, 9 December 2014

The
genius of Stephen King’s engaging dramas of popular literature has consistently
involved the author’s adeptness at creating a narrative full of complex backgrounds
that are inhabited by characters possessing the ineluctable quality of drawing upon
the reservoir of empathetic responses from his readers.

These
fictional characters often represent credible composites of the spectrum of the
human psychological condition: from the characterisations of supernaturally
directed protagonists to the ordinary ones, they have proved memorable because
of the realism with which they are imbued.

The
challenge for King in ‘11/22/63’ was to realistically portray historical
figures in his foray into the genre of historical fiction. However, the
international bestselling novelist left many of his fans who are boxing
followers rather peeved at his representation of Dick Tiger in the book which
was published back in November 2011.

It
is the story of a man named Jake Epping, a high school teacher from Maine, who
is transported back in time in order to try to prevent the assassination of
President John F. Kennedy.

He’s
actually transported to 1958 and has to live for five more years in order to
achieve his task. So Epping sustains himself by placing bets on major sporting events
- the final one of which involves Tiger, and which he watches via close circuit
television at the Dallas Civic Auditorium.

Thus,
Tiger enters the story in August of 1963 when he suffers an upset fifth round defeat
to an ‘older’ fictional journeyman Texan named Tom ‘The Hammer’ Case at New
York City’s Madison Square Garden.

The
scenario is implausible; even shocking for historically-minded boxing fans. And
while King’s storytelling style has not required him to be a stickler for
detailed facts in the mould of an Arthur Hailey or James Michener, the decision
to portray Tiger in these circumstances does not seemingly tally with that of a
writer whose research for this novel encompassed “a six-foot high stack of
books.”

Whereas
King presents Tiger as a rising title contender, Tiger was in fact at the time
the undisputed middleweight champion of the world. In August of 1963, he had
successfully defended the crown he had won from Gene Fullmer the previous year
against Fullmer in the Nigerian city of Ibadan in what had been Black Africa’s
first staged world title bout – fully eleven years before the famous ‘Rumble in
the Jungle’ between Muhammad Ali and George Foreman.

Tiger
did lose a fight in 1963. His defeat in December of that year at the Atlantic
City Convention Hall came against Joey Giardello.

But
Giardello was a ‘real’ enough boxer; a talented box-puncher who had been a
perennial contender for the world middleweight title which some observers felt
had been denied him in a foul-filled contest against Fullmer in 1960.

Tiger
did not lose by knockout to over-the-hill challengers in the early 1960s, or,
come to think of it, in the latter part of his career when his sole knockout
loss came by way of the incendiary fists of the legendary Bob Foster.

In
1968, Tiger was an ageing world light heavyweight champion who gave away a
great deal of height, weight and reach to the almost decade younger Foster who
at the time was already being acknowledged as an all-time division great.

‘Tom
Case’s' defeat of Dick Tiger is puzzling.

Tiger
was extremely durable. He had a formidable ‘chin’; boxing parlance for a
pugilist apt at absorbing punches that would knockout or at least knockdown
conventional foes. How else would he have survived two knockdowns against the
paralyzing shots he had to absorb from the hard-hitting light heavyweight
contender, Frankie DePaula?

How
could he successfully neutralise many of a generation of the middleweight
division’s all-time finest who included the powerful punchers: Rubin
‘Hurricane’ Carter, Jose ‘Monon’ Gonzalez and Henry Hank?

And
it wasn’t as if he designed a style which involved absorbing a lot of punches
as was the approach of Joe Frazier. Tiger aptly evaded punches by a deft
combination of head movement and footwork. His noble countenance captured in the
aftermath of his retirement; bereft of lumps or scars, testified to this.

Interestingly
enough given King’s book’s portrayal of the outcome of Tiger’s fictional bout
as having some bearing on the protagonist’s objective in regard to Kennedy, it
is worth noting that the late president did have some awareness of Dick Tiger’s
career.

In
a satellite telephone conversation with the Nigerian Prime Minister Abubaker
Tafawa Balewa in August of 1963, Kennedy had light-heartedly interjected that
“we look forward to having Dick Tiger come over here”

Perhaps
he had been briefed beforehand by a member of staff to mention Tiger’s name as
part of a charm offensive in a brief conversation with another world leader.
But then again JFK had some credentials as a bona fide boxing fan.

He
had watched heavyweight champion Floyd Patterson defend his title against Tom
McNeely by close circuit feed at the White House in December of 1961. One month
after the bout, he met Patterson at the White House in between his Oval Office
meetings with the ambassadors from Ireland and China. Patterson had found
Kennedy’s knowledge of boxing to be a “pleasant revelation”.

The
president had also taken the trouble to respond to Joey Giardello’s invitation
to watch his challenge to Dick Tiger’s crown in December of 1963. Kennedy
responded that his busy schedule would not allow for that.

Giardello
received the reply the day after the president’s assassination.

In
his heyday Tiger’s accomplishments as a pugilist were of such substance that
his name was on the lips of political leaders such as Ghana’s Kwame Nkrumah as
well as on the Honours List of Queen Elizabeth of Britain.

He
lent his great name and the weight of his reputation to the cause of Biafran
separation.

But
it was in the last halcyon era of boxing at Madison Square Garden; the Mecca of
the sport where the fans worshipped this granite hewn, down-to-earth and humble
practitioner of the manly art plying his trade on the squared ring canvas below
the brilliant glare of klieg lights that Tiger’s name was most assuredly spoken
and his craft adoringly appreciated.

They
had seen him lose; invariably on points to fleet-footed practitioners who could
contrive to evade his great strength, but the thought to them of an over-the-hill
journeyman knocking out one of the most resilient fighters in middleweight
history would have been almost beyond the limits of their collective imagination.

But
then again King’s novel is about ‘alternative history’. It is fiction.

It
is pure fantasy.

Adeyinka
Makinde is the author of DICK TIGER: The
Life and Times of a Boxing Immortal..

Jersey Boy

Dick Tiger

About Me

Adeyinka Makinde trained for the law as a barrister. He lectures in criminal law and public law at a university in London, and has an academic research interest in intelligence & security matters. He is a contributor to a number of websites for which he has written essays and commentaries on international relations, politics and military history. He has served as a programme consultant and provided expert commentary for BBC World Service Radio, China Radio International and the Voice of Russia. He is the author of Dick Tiger: The Life and Times of a Boxing Immortal (2005) and Jersey Boy: The Life and Mob Slaying of Frankie DePaula (2010).